Case 3323545/2021 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Moura Meat Centre Ltd T/a The Brazilian Shop — 2022
- Case reference
- 3323545/2021
- Decision date
- 3 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Gabriele Ramos Machado Petriccone, worked for Moura Meat Centre Ltd, trading as The Brazilian Shop, from 10 August 2020 until her dismissal on 9 July 2021. The tribunal resolved the respondent's identity by reference to the claimant's payslip and company searches, and proceeded in the respondent's absence after noting that a director, Mr Appolonio, was aware of the proceedings. The respondent's response alleged gross misconduct, but it did not address the wage and holiday claims in any detail.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant lacked sufficient qualifying service to bring the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that only her final week's wages had been underpaid, in the gross sum claimed. | Upheld | — | £447 |
| Holiday pay | The tribunal accepted that no paid holiday had been taken during the 11-month employment, apart from New Year's Day taken as unpaid leave, and calculated 26 days' accrued holiday pay at £120 per day. | Upheld | — | £3,120 |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had been dismissed without notice and awarded damages equivalent to five days' pay at £120 per day. | Upheld | — | £600 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,167
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.